Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/377

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Connect Broad Band Office - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       377

Date of Institution:   26.12.2016

Date of Decision :    12.06.2017

 

Amrik Singh son of Sohan Singh r/o Street No. 6 L, Balbir Avenue, Faridkot.

                                                            .......Complainant

Versus

1. Connect Broadband Office, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Director.
2. Connect Internet Office, Balaji Colony, Faridkot through authorised Signatory.                                                                              ........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Amrik Singh/complainant in person,    

                  Sh Vipin Tayal, Ld Counsel for Ops.

                  

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs3700/- illegally received from him and to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to complainant.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got installed the internet connection of Ops for the study purpose of his son. It is submitted that after admission of his son in NIT, Jallandhar in August, 2016, complainant made last final payment pertaining to his internet consumption charges of Rs.730/- and got disconnected the said connection and obtained NOC as his son was not there and complainant himself did not require the said connection. It is further submitted that after about three months of disconnection of his internet connection, son of complainant received telephonic call from OP-2 that amount of Rs.3729/-is due towards  them pertaining to internet consumption and on receipt of information regarding this from his son, complainant immediately visited the office of Ops at Faridkot and showed them the NOC issued by them, but they said that internet connection services have been reinstalled to complainant on receipt direction from the mobile number registered with them. It is further submitted that neither complainant nor any of his family member ever gave any direction to Ops to reinstall the said connection, demand raised by Ops is quite illegal. Complainant made complaint against these illegal charges sent by OP-2 to OP-1, who told complainant through message dt 10.12.2016 that his complaint has been resolved. On 12.12.2016, Ops sent message on the phone of his son and forced him to make payment of bill of Rs.3729/-immediately and in failure to do so, threatened to initiate legal proceedings against him. There is gross negligence on the part of OPs in not performing their duty properly and this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                               The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 3.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                         On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. It is averred that present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. It is averred that earlier complainant got disconnected his internet connection and obtained NOC from them, but later on when they convinced him regarding new plan, he gave consent for this and on his direction, answering Ops reinstalled the internet connection services to him, but when they asked him to make payment for consumption of internet services, he refused to pay the same and they have every right to recover the bill in question from him. It is further averred that connection in question is reinstalled only on request of complainant and complainant is duty bound to make payment of same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                                  Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

6                                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikram Katia as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

8                                   Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that complainant got installed the internet connection of Ops for the study purpose of his son. It is submitted that after admission of his son in NIT, Jallandhar in August, 2016, complainant made last final payment pertaining to his internet consumption charges of Rs.730/- and got disconnected the said connection and obtained NOC as his son was not there and complainant himself did not require the said connection. It is further submitted that after about three months of disconnection of his internet connection, son of complainant received telephonic call from OP-2 that amount of Rs.3729/-is due towards  them pertaining to internet consumption and on receipt of information regarding this from his son, complainant immediately visited the office of Ops at Faridkot and showed them the NOC issued by them, but they said that internet connection services have been reinstalled to complainant on receipt direction from the mobile number registered with them. It is further submitted that neither complainant nor any of his family member ever gave any direction to Ops to reinstall the said connection. Complainant made complaint against these illegal charges sent by OP-2 to OP-1, who told complainant through message dt 10.12.2016 that his complaint has been resolved. On 12.12.2016, Ops sent message on the phone of his son and forced him to make payment of bill of Rs.3729/-immediately and in failure to do so, threatened to initiate legal proceedings against him. Due to threat and under compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.3700/-with Ops on 1.02.2017 during the pendency of present complaint vide receipt Ex C-5.There is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and has stressed to consider the documents adduced.

9                                        Ld Counsel for OPs argued that all the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, he has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is averred that earlier complainant got disconnected his internet connection and obtained NOC from them, but later on when they convinced him regarding their new plan, he gave consent for this and on direction of complainant, answering Ops reinstalled the internet connection services to him, but when they asked him to make payment for consumption of internet services, he refused to pay the same and they have every right to recover the amount from him. It is further averred that connection in question is reinstalled only on request of complainant and complainant is duty bound to make payment of same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

10                                         After careful perusal of record, evidence placed on record and going through the pleadings of respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that he got disconnected his internet connection from Ops, cleared all the dues and also obtained NOC from them, but despite disconnection of said connection, Ops sent bill for Rs.3729/-, which is quite illegal. Complainant made several requests to Ops that he has obtained NOC, his connection has been disconnected and it is not got reinstalled by him and nothing is due towards him, but  Ops paid no heed to his requests and threatened him for initiating legal proceedings against and under compelling circumstances, he made payment of Rs.3700/-to Ops. In reply, Ops stress only on the point that they reinstalled the internet services to connection of complainant only on request and directions of complainant for this and he has made the complaint only to avoid payment and to obtain undue advantage from them.

11                                        To prove his pleadings, complainant has stressed on document Ex C-2 which is the copy of Disconnection Form dated 3.08.2016 that clearly shows that complainant got disconnected his internet connection on 3.08.2016. further Ex C-3 payment receipt dt 3.08.2016 also proves the fact that complainant had already cleared his dues and nothing is outstanding towards him. Ex C-4 is the complaint made by complainant before Ops with request to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.3729/9. Ex C-5 is the cogent evidence, which proves that complainant deposited Rs.3700/-with Ops fearing threats of legal proceedings by Ops. Ex C-6 is the  copy of messages, received by complainant on his registered mobile number clearly showing the threats given by Ops to complainant that forced complainant to pay Rs.3700/-with them.       

12                                         From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by complainant party, it is observed that Ops have reinstalled the services of internet to the disconnection connection of complainant without his consent or written approval. There is no documentary evidence on record brought by Ops to prove that complaint gave his written consent to reinstall the internet connection. Mere saying that complainant agreed to the plan convinced by them, is not sufficient evidence to prove that complainant gave any direction for reinstallation of internet connection. In the light of Ex C-4 ie complaint made by complainant before Ops regarding demand of Rs.3729/-, plea taken by Ops that they restarted the connection of complainant on his request seems to have no legs to stand upon. Moreover, when they have issued NOC to complainant and vide Ex C-2 disconnection order and Ex C-3 for payment of remaining amount, there seems to be no amount outstanding against complainant.  Ex C-5 proves that complainant paid the amount of Rs.3700/-to Ops under compelling circumstances fearing the initiation of legal proceedings against him. This is gross trade mal practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.3700/-received from complainant on 1.02.2017 and are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3,000/-as litigation expenses.  Compliance of this order be made within one month   from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant shall be entitled to initiate  proceedings  under   section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be supplied complainant as well as Opposite parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 12.06.2017       

Member                President                    (P Singla)                (Ajit Aggarwal)